Pixelization interferometer search reconstructs negative fluxes about pyautolens HOT 4 OPEN

We implemented the positive-only solver ~6 months ago, but I never did thorough tests on the interferometer implementation.

This could imply theres a bug in the code and I need to correctly swap-out the code for the positive-only solution. I'll do some checks this afternoon.

Most our interferometer analysis has been performed on a positive-negative solver, and we trust the results, so I think these results are reliable. I have for a while been wondering if the positive only solver would make any difference to interferometry...so it'll be nice to find out.

from pyautolens.

Hey,
Any updates on this?

I have for a while been wondering if the positive only solver would make any difference to interferometry...so it'll be nice to find out.

So, by default is it not even applied in the interferometric analysis? Testing the run time for use_positive_only_solver true and false, I found no net increase (or decrease) in run time. The time it takes for the figure_of_merit with use_positive_only_solver=false is shorter by ~30s but the fit_time increased by ~30s compared to leaving it on.

Having negative pixels in the source reconstruction doesn't seem physical at all. Especially, since the input is continuum data.

from pyautolens.

Not had time to check, but its on my to do list.

Having negative pixels in the source reconstruction doesn't seem physical at all. Especially, since the input is continuum data.

I agree, albeit I would note that every single lensing paper analysing interferometer data ever has used a positive-negative solver, so its pretty much the norm!

I'll try check asap, I've got a big source code refactor on the go which I need to get stable first lol.

from pyautolens.

Not had time to check, but its on my to do list.

Alright, just checking if it fell through the cracks. Thanks for working on it.

I agree, albeit I would note that every single lensing paper analysing interferometer data ever has used a positive-negative solver, so its pretty much the norm!

I expected as much, though I was wondering whether this was normal behavior for PyAutoLens. After all, it does have that feature but it could also have been something wrong with my code/input.

I'll try check asap, I've got a big source code refactor on the go which I need to get stable first lol.

No worries and good luck ;)

from pyautolens.